Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Into?
Nevermind if you can't see it.
Into?
Nevermind if you can't see it.
So please, please, pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top, what in YOUR opinion, is the reason the news article only appears "authentic"?
Give some idea of YOUR analysis before us smucks give OUR opinion to be shot down by you crying "you (us) are to closed minded"
What do you think about this?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/...eist-baffles-hardened-police-scotland-8620581
I can see her clearly now and I am worried that she may catch a chill...I would love to tell you what she just said to me but I must respect her privacy.Casper the friendly host?
I can see her clearly now and I am worried that she may catch a chill...I would love to tell you what she just said to me but I must respect her privacy.
alex
I had one, knocking stuff over but it left after I put out the ratsak.
Alex
Thanks muchly MR for all these "compelling" cases of UFO's, Poltergeists, Big foots, and any number of cases of the supernatural and/or paranormal. We are all indebted to you.This is a compelling case
This is a really weak case. Totally unconvincing. If this is "well documented", I'd hate to see a poorly documented case.This is a compelling case of a poltergeist haunting that occurred in San Pedro California in the 1990's. It involved a young woman named Jackie Hernandez and over time several of her friends as well as a parapychologist. This case stands out among other poltergeist cases because it was so persistent and long lasting and hence well-documented. The full range of typical poltergeist activities were manifested: appearance of apparitions, footsteps in an empty attic, glowing lights and orbs, objects moving by themselves, human blood dripping from things, mists or smoke, fires igniting, shoving, red marks on skin, writing on the wall, spirit attachment, coins being thrown, being held down in bed, whispers, voices, draining of camera batteries, electrical quirks, etc. See what you think.
https://www.thinkanomalous.com/jackie-hernandez.html
I worked through the video. It's 20 minutes long. Most of it is anecdotal or "reconstructed", so I ignored all that and looked only at the objective evidence (photos etc.). There are lots of reports of people seeing things, hearing things and being pushed by ghostly hands, but all of that is anecdotal and susceptible to many types of mundane explanation.
The paranormal investigators all seem to be incompetent and willing believers in just about anything. The woman involved seems like somebody down on her luck, struggling to make ends meet and living below the poverty line. By the time the "investigators" are done with her, she's a nervous wreck, poor thing.
Sure there is. I posted some.Actually there is no evidence the investigators were "incompetent and willing believers in just about anything".
What I am saying is what I always end up saying when looking at the shoddy evidence you put up so breathlessly: the evidence doesn't come anywhere near confirming what you claim it confirms - in this case the existence of ghostly poltergeists who haunt trailer parks.And then there's your account, who wasn't there and is making assumptions about events based on your own disbelief in paranormal phenomena.
That's your problem right there. You think it's a matter of who you trust - who you want to believe. You'll never get anywhere until you start looking at the evidence like an objective investigator.So whose account can we trust: those who were there and show no signs of hoaxing or of mistaking mundane events for paranormal events, or you who was not there and only has an agenda to debunk all paranormal accounts as mundane events or hoaxes? I think the answer is obvious.
What I am saying is what I always end up saying when looking at the shoddy evidence you put up so breathlessly: the evidence doesn't come anywhere near confirming what you claim it confirms - in this case the existence of ghostly poltergeists who haunt trailer parks.
That's your problem right there. You think it's a matter of who you trust - who you want to believe. You'll never get anywhere until you start looking at the evidence like an objective investigator.
No. Look, this is basic stuff. I'll walk you through it.The evidence confirms what is documented in dozens of other cases of poltergeist hauntings with multiple eyewitness accounts and photos and video.
In superhero movies we see the same phenomena over and over again, too: human beings with superhuman strength, flying around, with various types of magical powers (many of which are shared by different superheros). Nothing in any of that repetition provides evidence that superheros actually exist.It's the same phenomena over and over again: moving objects, fires starting, voices, bangs and thumping footsteps, writing on the wall, coins thrown from nowhere, floating lights, apparitions, red marks on the skin, etc.
In fact, the opposite is true. It is highly likely that they are doing exactly what you claim they aren't doing. Far more likely than ghosts existing.It's highly unlikely that they are mistaking mundane events for paranormal events ...
I agree. It's a good thing I didn't claim it was a hoax, then, isn't it? You would have caught me out, clever old you!As for it all being a hoax, we have no basis to assume that. The hoax would have to be cleverly perpetrated by numerous conspiring people over a long period of time at multiple locations, even including the young woman herself, which is highly unlikely, and then continued to be covered up over all the years since then.
You do make me laugh sometimes, Magical Realist.You do the same thing, cherry-picking the incidents you can handwave away as mundane events and then dismissing the rest as unreliable anecdotes of either incompetent or deceptive investigators.
In this particular case, there's not much to excite the interest, I agree. It seems most likely that the full explanations would turn out to be boringly mundane. Your problem is that you bought into the narrative being fed to you by the makers of the video, rather than ignoring that and concentrating on the actual objective evidence like I did, as a true science-minded investigator.You obviously have no interest in really knowing what was going on like a true science-minded investigator would...
I just told you, though: it's not about trust. It's not about who I believe or don't believe. I looked only at the objective evidence. I was very clear about that in post #31. You ignore the objective evidence because you are desperate to believe the tall tale of the ghost. Your excuse is that you believe lots of other similar tall tales, and this one fits the pattern, so you decided to believe this one too. That's not what a true science-minded investigator does.... driven only to make up totally contrived excuses for not believing what was reported by eyewitnesses or shown in photos and videos.
I made no such assumption. I make no such assumption. What I told you - what is obvious from my analysis - is that the objective evidence for a paranormal cause is ludicrously weak for this case.IOW you seek to establish what you already conclude, assuming that the whole series of incidents were not paranormally caused even though you have no evidence of such.
No. Look, this is basic stuff. I'll walk you through it.
Even if all those unrelated cases you refer to showed genuine poltergeist activity, none of that evidence would show that there was a poltergeist in this case. Conversely, if you somehow managed to show there was a genuine poltergeist in this case, it would do nothing to prove that other cases had poltergeists.
In superhero movies we see the same phenomena over and over again, too: human beings with superhuman strength, flying around, with various types of magical powers (many of which are shared by different superheros). Nothing in any of that repetition provides evidence that superheros actually exist.
Out of interest, though, where do these "coins thrown from nowhere" come from? Do they just appear out of thin air? Has anybody documented that? It would be a very interesting violation of the law of conservation of energy, if confirmed.
In fact, the opposite is true. It is highly likely that they are doing exactly what you claim they aren't doing. Far more likely than ghosts existing.
This incident was hand picked by you as a supposedly stunning proof of the existence of poltergeists. I didn't choose to examine this. You put it up for examination. I devoted some time to perusing the evidence presented, and I found that the evidence is very weak and unconvincing, for reasons I explained at some length just a few posts above this one.
Maybe next time you cherry-pick a ghost story, you ought to pick one that makes a more persuasive case than this one.
In this particular case, there's not much to excite the interest, I agree. It seems most likely that the full explanations would turn out to be boringly mundane. Your problem is that you bought into the narrative being fed to you by the makers of the video, rather than ignoring that and concentrating on the actual objective evidence like I did, as a true science-minded investigator.
You're very welcome to review my time-stamped discussion of the video you posted and carry out your own investigations to fill in some of the glaring holes in your case. If you take issue with my analysis, go through it yourself and tell me what I got wrong (with appropriate supporting evidence, of course).
I just told you, though: it's not about trust. It's not about who I believe or don't believe. I looked only at the objective evidence. I was very clear about that in post #31. You ignore the objective evidence because you are desperate to believe the tall tale of the ghost. Your excuse is that you believe lots of other similar tall tales, and this one fits the pattern, so you decided to believe this one too. That's not what a true science-minded investigator does.
There is nothing in reality that makes ghosts unlikely or impossible to exist.
Except that they violate some physical laws of nature.
Quantum entanglement, the Big Bang, black holes, consciousness? What else violates the known laws of nature?